OpenAirDocs.org

20160406008689A

Accident · Substantial damage
Open the Markdown

FAA accident report · Cessna 172S · Payson, AZ · April 6, 2016

FAA Aviation Safety Information Portal

© OpenStreetMap
Date
April 6, 2016 · 09:45 local
Place
Payson, AZ
Phase of flight
Landing: Touchdown
Operating rules
General operating rules (Part 91)
Damage
Substantial damage
Aircraft
N5275S
NTSB investigation
NTSBGAA16CA188
Reported as
Cessna 172S
Reported engine
Lycoming IO-360-L2A
People aboard
1
Fatal injuries
0
Other injuries
0
Pilot’s certificate
Private pilot
Pilot’s flight hours
65 total65 in this make and model32 in the last 90 days
N5275SRegistered now · Cessna 172SS/N 172S9203 · Built 2002Airframe modelCessna 172SEngine modelLycoming IO-360-L2AReciprocating

From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

What happened

The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.

On March 6, 2016 the student pilot was on a solo cross country from deer valley airport (dvt) to pason airport (pan) with a return to dvt. During the landing the student pilot had a hard landing that lead to damage of the fairing located on the lower rudder, tail tie down hook, damage to the tail skid and firewall. Pilot witnesses reported that the aircraft performed an abnormally high approach leading to a high speed landing. The witnesses also reported the aircraft started to porpoise and that the aircraft ultimately landed on the nose wheel. Witnesses stated that the aircraft taxied back to perform another takeoff. During the takeoff a pilot in another aircraft radioed to the student that the aircraft had a hard landing and that he should have the aircraft looked at. The student rejected the takeoff, cleared the runway and taxied to the FBO ramp. Mechanics at the airport did an inspection of the aircraft of both the tail section and inspected the firewall by observing through the oil access door. The mechanic stated that the student was informed of the damage and that he should contact the school. The student contacted the insturctor who requested that the student send pictures of the damage. The student initaly sent a picture of the nose wheel section. The instructor text the student that he was not interested in the nose wheel section and that he wanted picutres of the tail section. The instructor stated the student never indicated to him that there was damage to the firewall. After the instructor reviewed the pictures he asked the student to bend back the tail skid and to return the aircraft back to dvt. The student stated he was shook up and that he was concerned about flying the aircraft back. Witnesses at the airport claimed the student appeared to be visably distrat. The instructor assured the student that he would be fine for the return flight. The student flew the aircraft back to dvt. The mechanic at pan contacted the maintenance department of the school and reported the damage to the tail section and the firewall. The chief instructor stated that the student did not state there was any damage to the firewall and their only knowledge of the damage was from the phone call they received from the mechanic in pan.

As the FAA filed it

ON MARCH 6, 2016 THE STUDENT PILOT WAS ON A SOLO CROSS COUNTRY FROM DEER VALLEY AIRPORT (DVT) TO PASON AIRPORT (PAN) WITH A RETURN TO DVT. DURING THE LANDING THE STUDENT PILOT HAD A HARD LANDING THAT LEAD TO DAMAGE OF THE FAIRING LOCATED ON THE LOWER RUDDER, TAIL TIE DOWN HOOK, DAMAGE TO THE TAIL SKID AND FIREWALL. PILOT WITNESSES REPORTED THAT THE AIRCRAFT PERFORMED AN ABNORMALLY HIGH APPROACH LEADING TO A HIGH SPEED LANDING. THE WITNESSES ALSO REPORTED THE AIRCRAFT STARTED TO PORPOISE AND THAT THE AIRCRAFT ULTIMATELY LANDED ON THE NOSE WHEEL. WITNESSES STATED THAT THE AIRCRAFT TAXIED BACK TO PERFORM ANOTHER TAKEOFF. DURING THE TAKEOFF A PILOT IN ANOTHER AIRCRAFT RADIOED TO THE STUDENT THAT THE AIRCRAFT HAD A HARD LANDING AND THAT HE SHOULD HAVE THE AIRCRAFT LOOKED AT. THE STUDENT REJECTED THE TAKEOFF, CLEARED THE RUNWAY AND TAXIED TO THE FBO RAMP. MECHANICS AT THE AIRPORT DID AN INSPECTION OF THE AIRCRAFT OF BOTH THE TAIL SECTION AND INSPECTED THE FIREWALL BY OBSERVING THROUGH THE OIL ACCESS DOOR. THE MECHANIC STATED THAT THE STUDENT WAS INFORMED OF THE DAMAGE AND THAT HE SHOULD CONTACT THE SCHOOL. THE STUDENT CONTACTED THE INSTURCTOR WHO REQUESTED THAT THE STUDENT SEND PICTURES OF THE DAMAGE. THE STUDENT INITALY SENT A PICTURE OF THE NOSE WHEEL SECTION. THE INSTRUCTOR TEXT THE STUDENT THAT HE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THE NOSE WHEEL SECTION AND THAT HE WANTED PICUTRES OF THE TAIL SECTION. THE INSTRUCTOR STATED THE STUDENT NEVER INDICATED TO HIM THAT THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THE FIREWALL. AFTER THE INSTRUCTOR REVIEWED THE PICTURES HE ASKED THE STUDENT TO BEND BACK THE TAIL SKID AND TO RETURN THE AIRCRAFT BACK TO DVT. THE STUDENT STATED HE WAS SHOOK UP AND THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT FLYING THE AIRCRAFT BACK. WITNESSES AT THE AIRPORT CLAIMED THE STUDENT APPEARED TO BE VISABLY DISTRAT. THE INSTRUCTOR ASSURED THE STUDENT THAT HE WOULD BE FINE FOR THE RETURN FLIGHT. THE STUDENT FLEW THE AIRCRAFT BACK TO DVT. THE MECHANIC AT PAN CONTACTED THE MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT OF THE SCHOOL AND REPORTED THE DAMAGE TO THE TAIL SECTION AND THE FIREWALL. THE CHIEF INSTRUCTOR STATED THAT THE STUDENT DID NOT STATE THERE WAS ANY DAMAGE TO THE FIREWALL AND THEIR ONLY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DAMAGE WAS FROM THE PHONE CALL THEY RECEIVED FROM THE MECHANIC IN PAN.

NTSB investigation

The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.

NTSB GAA16CA188Accident · No injuriesData collectionFinal reportPayson, AZThe student pilot's failure to maintain pitch control during the landing flare, resulting in the subsequent porpoise during landing and substantial damage to the firewall.Apr 6, 2016 · Substantial damage

Other reports on N5275S · 3

Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.

Incident 20170726015289ILanding: Approach · Phoenix, AZBird strike reported while doing pattern work for runway 25L, dvt. Large bird struck left wing 5 inches inboard causing significant dent in between ribs, no internal damage.Jul 26, 2017 · Minor damageIncident 20130615009559ILanding: Rollout · Phoenix, AZN5275S landed runway 25L at Phoenix Deer Valley Airport (kdvt). Upon landing, the aircraft veered to the right side of the runway onto the gravel infield. The aircraft slowed while in the infield, then exited at taxiway intersection B5. The aircraft then held…Jun 15, 2013 · No damageAccident 20110908025169ALanding: Touchdown · Phoenix, AZPrivate pilot lost control of aircraft during touchdown and landing rollout. This resulted in substantial damage to the aircraft. No mechanical issues were found or believed to be involved. Winds were less than 10 knots at time of accident.Sep 8, 2011 · Substantial damage